Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Introduction

A “tract, by the late J. H. Thurman… reprinted and distributed by the Alumni Association, Mid-Continent Baptist Bible College, Mayfield, Kentucky,” has been submitted for review and, if necessary, for refutation. The tract is entitled “TWENTY-FIVE REASONS Why The First Church Was Organized Before Pentecost.” Its author is deceased, but the “Alumni Association, MidContinent Baptist Bible College” which “reprinted and distributed” the tract is alive and well. Thus, we shall hold the distinguished Alumni Association liable, accountable and responsible for its contents. If the Association refuses to take the blame, our efforts shall, to that extent at least, be successful.

The title refers only to the organization of “The First Church.” The term “organized” means “established” or “in existence” as the Baptists here use it. So, reference is made to the establishment of “The First Church.” This church, allegedly organized before Pentecost, could not have been a Baptist Church. Neither the tract nor its title affirms that it was. Perhaps this was an oversight, or, perchance, they meant it to be assumed without being directly asserted. One thing is certain. There is no reference to a Baptist Church or to Baptist Churches anywhere in the Bible. Indeed, there is absolutely no mention of a Baptist Church in any literature, whether sacred or secular, written before 1600 A. D. Therefore, could it be proven or should it be proven that “The First Church” was “Organized Before Pentecost,” it would still not be a Baptist Church.

The tract under examination is extremely terse. There is a two sentence introduction followed by the “twenty five reasons.” We shall note and quote the tract in its entirety as we proceed. First, the opening statement upon which each reason rests. “There is every reason to believe the first church was in existence before Pentecost. The proof is positive.” If the reasons are scriptural, we shall readily acknowledge the proof as being positive. Our quarrel is not over scriptural reasons. We accept scriptural reasons but not reasons that evaporate into mere pretenses or excuses when considered.

Twenty Fire Reasons Reviewed and Refuted

“1. They had the gospel before Pentecost. ‘The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ’ (Mk. l:1 ).”

The gospel was preached unto Abraham, “And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed” (Gal. 3:8). Does this prove “the first church was in existence” in the days of Abraham? If it does not, and it does not, then neither can the tract prove the church was “in existence before Pentecost.”

We are supposed to conclude that the beginning of the gospel assures the beginning of the church, but what Scripture impels or compels that conclusion? None. Mark 1:1 speaks of “the beginning of the gospel.”‘If it said “the beginning of the church of Jesus Christ,” we would have a different response, but it does not say that.

Peter referred to the falling of the Holy Spirit on the apostles on Pentecost as “the beginning.” The beginning of what? Can a Baptist tell us? If the complete gospel and the church were in existence before Pentecost, what was “the beginning” to which Peter alluded in Acts 11:15?

“2. They had a commission to preach. ‘And as ye go, preach, saying the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Matt. 10:5-7).”

The Old Testament prophets had a commission to preach before Pentecost. Was the church in existence during their days? Neither the prophets nor the apostles in Matthew 10 were proclaiming “repentance and remission of sins” in the name of Christ at this time (Lk. 24:47). If the church was organized then, it was composed of those who were not “purchased with his own blood,” for the remission of sins was not granted at that time under New Testament terms. However, the church is those who have been purchased with his own blood (Acts 20:28).

The passage cited as proof tells us what they were “commissioned to preach,” that is, “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” They were not to preach that it is “organized” or “in existence,” but that it is “at hand.” Yes, “they had a commission to preach” that the tract’s premise is false!

“3. They had an ordained ministry. ‘And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach’ (Mk. 3:14 ).”

Who had an “ordained ministry?” “They,” the tract says. “They” is supposed to refer to the church. In other words, “They,” the church, had an “ordained ministry.” This assumes the point in question. Jesus, not the church, had an “ordained ministry.” “He,” Jesus, “appointed twelve, that they might be with Him, and that He might send them out to preach” (NASB).

Let us not forget that Judas was part of this ministry” (Acts 1:17). If he was part of this alleged Baptist Church, it follows that he was “saved” at that time, for one cannot be a Baptist who is not “saved.” Judas “by transgression fell that he might go to his own place” (Acts 1:25). We have, therefore, a clear case of apostasy, which contradicts the Baptist doctrine of once saved, always saved. So, their argument on the church leads them to a contradiction of one of their cardinal doctrines.

“4 They had authority to baptize. `Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them’ etc. (Matt. 28:19 RV).”

This “authority to baptize” was to begin “in Jerusalem” (Lk. 24:47). It was not to be exercised until they were “clothed with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49-NASB). This “authority to baptize” was not used until the Holy Spirit came upon them in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4). The baptism of Matthew 28:19 was not commanded nor administered before the Pentecost in Acts 2 (Cf. Mk. 16:16; Lk. 24:46-49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4, 38-47).

“5. They had baptized believers. ‘Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, . . .and were baptized of him in Jordan’ (Matt. 3:5, 6).

The “baptized believers” in this text were Jews, sons of Abraham, children of God. They received the baptism of John, not the baptism of Christ. At this lime, even John the Baptist “did not recognize” Jesus as the one who was to baptize in the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:31-33). John had not baptized Jesus at the time Matthew 3:5, 6 occurred (Matt. 3:15-17). Can anyone believe the church existed before Jesus was “manifest to Israel?”

Baptists believe baptism must have the sanction of a Baptist Church in order to be valid. Was there a church in existence that sent John to baptize? If not, his baptism was void and vain. If there was such a church, the church was “organized” before John the Baptist! Either way, the Baptist position is in error.

“6. They had the keys of the kingdom before Pentecost. ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom’ (Matt. 16:19 ).”

Jesus said, “I will give.” It does not say, “I am giving,” or “I have given,” but “I will give.” That is future, prospective-what he will do, not what he had done. The tract says, “They had the keys.” Not so.

Keys symbolize and emphasize control of entrance. The Savior was to have the “key” of the house of David upon His shoulder (Isa. 22:22). The government of God was to be upon His shoulder (Isa. 9:6). So, in Revelation 3:7 we read of Jesus, “he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” Keys, therefore, indicate and illustrate power or authority over entrance. Jesus dropped the figure of speech in John 20:23 when He said, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” This is all that was implied in giving the keys of the kingdom to the apostles. Thus, using the keys, Peter declared the terms of remittance and redemption, of entrance into the kingdom, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

In Matthew 16:18, the verse just above the one cited by our tract, Jesus said, “I will build my church.” He did not say, “I have built it,” but, “I will build” it. This statement not only demolishes the present argument but also the previous arguments under numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5.

But while we are here, let us observe the verse just below Matt. 16:19, “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.” My, my, you mean the church was established, it had an “ordained ministry,” and a “commission to preach;” yet it could “tell no man” that Jesus was the Christ? That is surely some church. It must have been a forerunner of the Baptist Church which evolved in the seventeenth century! It certainly was not the church of the Lord!

“7. The Apostles, prophets and teachers were, in it before Pentecost. `God hath set some in the church, first Apostles; secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers’ (1 Cor. 12:28 ).”

Again, this “reason” begs the question in contention. Granted, God “set some in the church,”. but that He did so before Pentecost is not in evidence. The apostles were set in their apostolic office .before Pentecost,. but they were not set in the church until after Christ’s resurrection from the dead and ascension to the right hand of God. “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high… and gave gifts unto men. . . And he gave some, apostles; and some prophets. . . and teachers” (Eph. 4:8, 11).1 Corinthians 12:28 refers to the rank of the offices and not to the order in which they were set in the church.

“8. They had a church roll with 120 names on it. ‘And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about one hundred and twenty’ (Acts 1:15 ).”

If the text said, “Peter stood up in the midst of the church, we might be getting somewhere, but it does not say that. Note the presumption, “They had a church roll.” We read of no church roll. If this was the church gathered together, it was a Spiritless, powerless church, for the apostles did not receive power until after the Holy Spirit came upon them (Lk. 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:1-4).

We mentioned earlier the case of Judas Iscariot. Again, Peter says, “he was numbered with us” (Acts 1:17). According to this argument, Judas was on the Baptist “church roll.” To be in the church, one must be saved, as even Baptist doctrine will allow, and agree. Then, he “by transgression fell,” so the possibility of apostasy is established. Baptist friend, do not forget that.

“9. About 3000 were added to this church on the day of Pentecost. ‘And the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls’ (Acts 2:41 ).”

The first sentence rests on an unfounded assumption. We do not grant that the church existed for these to be added unto. “There were added unto them,” the apostles, “about 3000 souls.” This is shown by Acts 1:26; 2:1, 4, 42. Those who gladly received the word were added to the Lord and were thereby members of the church that commenced that day (Acts 2:47; 5:14; 11:24).

“10. They had the great commission before Pentecost. ‘Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you’ etc. (Matt. 28: 19, 20 ).”

See the response to argument number 4 above. If having the great commission before Pentecost shows the church was established before Pentecost, does the fact they were without the great commission until this time prove the church did not exist previously? If not, the argument is worthless. Remember that the great commission was not used until Pentecost. It is the results of the preaching of repentance and remission of sins that constitutes the church (Lk. 24:46-49; Acts 2:1-4, 36-47).

“11. The Father had given all things’ into Christ’s hands before Pentecost. `Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands’ (Jn. 13:3 ).”

The passage teaches that Jesus was fully cognizant of His divine nature, power, and person. With this consciousness, this awareness, still he stooped and washed the disciples’ feet. This serves to render his example even more powerful. It says nothing with respect to the existence of the church.

If one may argue that Christ’s having “all things” in His hands means the church was organized, may I not also reason that the judgment is past? John 5:22 declares the Father has “committed all judgment unto the Son.” Since Christ has “all judgment,” can one necessarily conclude the judgment has transpired? If the fact “all things” are. said to be in Christ’s hands means the church was established, then the fact Christ has “all judgment” proves the day of judgment is past! If not, why not?

“12. They had a prayer meeting in an upper room before Pentecost. ‘They went up into an upper room…These all continued with one accord in prayer’,(Acts 1: 13, 14 ).”

With that logic, one can “prove” the church existed before John the Baptist was born. They had .a prayer meeting outside the temple before John’s birth. “And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense” (Lk. 1:10). Therefore, the church existed before John the Baptist was born! Some proof, some argument!

“13. They had a business meeting before Pentecost. ‘And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed. . . show whether of these two thou hast chosen. . . And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles’ (Acts 1:15-26 ).”

“They” is again used to refer to the alleged church. It assumes what must be proven. Obviously, if the church had a business meeting before Pentecost, it existed prior to Pentecost in Acts 2; but that is the point in dispute. But who has proved that this is a church business meeting?

“14. In the above business meeting of the first church, Peter said that the company ( `us’) had existed ‘from the baptism of John’ (Acts 1:21, 22 ).”

Peter’s allusion is not to the fact that this “company” had existed from the baptism of John. The thing he is talking about is the Lord Jesus and His going “in and out among” them. That is the thing that began with the baptism of John and continued “unto the same day he was taken up.” The New American Standard makes this point clear. ” ‘It is therefore necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-beginning with the baptism of John, until the day that He was taken up from us-one of these should become a witness with us of His resurrection.’ “

If Peter said the “us” began at the baptism of John, then he says it ended when the Lord ascended; so, the church disbanded at the Lord’s ascension! He is saying, however, the Lord went in and out among us, the disciples, from John’s baptism until He ascended. He argues nothing about the establishment of the church.

“15. They had a church treasurer (Judas) before Pentecost. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, buy those things that we have need against the feast, or that he should give something to the poor’ (John 13:29 ).”

Observe the assumption: They had a “church treasurer,” so. the church existed at that time! Do, not forget that this “church treasurer,” Judas, “by transgression fell” and was lost, a thing which Baptist doctrine says is impossible!

But there is something which is as interesting as the fact the treasurer fell from grace and was lost. The text cited mentions the purchasing of “those things that we have need against the feast.” The feast referred to is the “feast of the Passover” (Jn: 13:1). My my, a Baptist church using its funds to celebrate the Jewish “feast of the Passover!” Can any suppose that a New Testament church could ever expect that its treasurer should “buy those things” necessary to keep the Passover feast? Perhaps a Baptist Church would do so, but “churches of Christ” do not.

And what about the “church footwashing” service in John 13? If this is the church meeting together, is it not a church footwashing ordinance (John 13:1-29)? So, we have (1) an apostate “church treasurer,” Judas; (2) a church that expected its treasury might be used to keep the Old Testament Passover; (3) and a church involved and engaged in a footwashing service!(To be concluded Next Week).

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, pp. 182-184
January 30, 1975

By William V. Beasley

One of the more common mistakes in persuasion (intentional interpersonal influence) is assuming that people know much more than they actually know. This is known as the COIK (Clear Only If Known) fallacy. As persuaders (2 Cor. 5:11) we need to be careful lest we fall victim to this fallacy.

Many of us have, no doubt, asked directions only to be told after some very ambiguous directions, “You can’t miss it.” What is really meant by “You can’t miss it” is “If I were going there, I could not miss it.” COIK.

Preachers are often victims of the COIK fallacy. We assume that our hearers know what we mean when we should be much more explicit. Consider the woman who was overheard, after hearing a lesson on the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, saying, “From what that preacher said someone might get the idea that Saul and Paul were the same person.” Well has it been said, “Never underestimate the ignorance of your audience.”

The problem is complicated by well meaning brethren who compliment our poor lessons. The saint, with greater knowledge, mentally fills in our omissions and all the while the alien sinner is left completely in the dark. In our teaching-preaching the gospel of Christ, it is Clear only if known.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 181
January 30, 1975

By Cecil Willis

Nothing In a Name??

We are living in an age in which people think the name of an organization is unimportant. ,People seem to have been swept off their feet by the adage, “There’s nothing in a name!” Others prefer to quote Shakespeare attempting to prove the name of the church is unimportant, as he says, “a rose called by some other name would smell just as sweet.” But there is something in a name, and in speaking of almost any object besides the church, men readily will admit there is much in a name. Would you be willing for your wife to be called by another’s name? Or are you “narrow-minded” enough to think that since she is your wife, therefore she should wear your name? Is the name one wears really important? In speaking of this example all would admit that the name is important. If the name by which one is called is of no consequence, it should be perfectly all right to call a good American a “Communist,” or a truthful man a “liar,” or an upright citizen a “criminal.” After all, if it be true that, there is nothing in a name, it would make no difference what we are called. We realize there is something in a name.

But when it comes to spiritual matters, there is everything in a name. It is certainly important that we wear the right name. Men have deceived themselves into taking all too lightly the actions of God. When God calls the name of the church through the Apostles, it is a matter of tremendous consequence for a finite creature such as you or me to attempt to change the decree of God. It is an insult to God. It amounts to saying we are not pleased with what God has done, and that we feel we can improve upon it.

There is something in a name. Paul thought there was. He wrote to a church one time, in which people were wearing wrong names, and he reprimanded them for such divisive actions, He says: “For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:11-13). Does this sound as though it makes no difference what name you wear? It certainly does not. Paul is saying it is wrong for you to wear the name of Paul, Peter, or Apollos. He says you should wear the name of Him into whose name you were baptized, and of Him who was crucified for you, which of course, is Jesus the Christ. To wear another’s name would be sin. Yet when a passage is as plain as this, men and women seem to think nothing at all is wrong with them wearing the name of some preacher who is of much less importance than Paul or Peter.

Is there anything in a name? Let us read a passage from the Bible, and you may answer the question for yourself. I know, after considering this reference, you cannot answer the question incorrectly, if you will but consider it carefully. Peter, in speaking of Christ, says: “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). There is salvation in no other name under heaven, than the name of Christ. And yet, people will tell you “There’s nothing in a name.” That just is not so! There is something in a name. There is salvation in a name. There is redemption in the name of Christ, and outside him one cannot be saved.

Names of the Church

The church is called by several names in the New Testament, each of which describes some specific aspect of it. When speaking of the church, we must use Biblical language. Even though there are many different names of the church stated in the Bible, there is but one body, one church. Let us now note some of the different titles by which the church is known.

By far, the most frequent appellation given the church is simply to call it the “church.” In Acts 8:1 we read, “And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church which was in Jerusalem.” The word “church,” in the original language of the New Testament, the Greek, means “a called-out body.” This means that the church consists of people called out of the world, and set apart unto a life of righteousness. In Matt. 16:18, Jesus says “upon this rock I will build my church.” The church, then, belongs to Christ. We reed of another name given the church in 1 Cor. 1:1, 2: “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth.” The church is here called “the church of God.” This means the church was designed by God. In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the elders of the church at Ephesus to “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.” The church is the “church of the Lord.” It belongs to Christ.

Hence, when Paul comes to speak of a plurality of congregations of the Lord, he speaks of “churches of Christ.” In Romans 16:16, Paul says “Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you.” From this passage some have concluded that Paul was speaking of the different denominations within the church of Christ. But this is not so, for Paul condemned anything that resembled denominationalism in 1 Cor. 1, from which we just read. Further, in New Testament times there were no denominations. He was speaking of different congregations belonging to Christ. We may speak of the several thousand different congregations of the Lord in this country as “churches of Christ,” for they are just that; they belong to Christ. He purchased them with his blood. We find the church called the “body of Christ” (Eph. 4:12), “the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15), the “one body” (Eph. 4:4; 1 Cor. 12:13), the “church of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23), the “kingdom” (Matt. 16:18), and many other such names. When members of the Lord’s church come to speak of the church, they will speak of it in Bible language. They will call the church by a Bible name. The church is a Bible organization, and we should use a Bible name for it. A church not having a Bible name is not the Bible church.

It is apparent that men are not content to use Bible language in speaking of the church when you walk down the street and look at the names printed upon church buildings in any city. Look at some of these names, and then try to find them in your Bible. These names given by men are wrong because they are divisive in character, given to designate peculiar parties, sectarian in purpose and effect, separating some professed believers from others by some peculiar name, and therefore are antagonistic to the prayer of Christ recorded in John 17. These humanly devised names are condemned in the New Testament, as we read a moment ago from 1 Cor. 1. They give honor to some person, such as an outstanding preacher, or exalt some ordinance or form of government, thus diverting honor which duly belongs to Christ. These human names act as stumbling blocks to sinners, confuse honest truth seekers, and create the false impression that God has many churches, and that just any of them are all right.

Names of the Members of the Church

So far we have noticed the names by which the church is known in the New Testament. Now let us notice some of the different names by which the members of the church are known in the New Testament. It likely will be impossible for us to make special notation of all the names given, for our space is limited. (1) “Disciples” is one name given. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them” (Acts 20:7). It should be observed that the word “disciples” is not the name of the church. It is the name given for those who make up the church. (2) “Saints.” Disciples of the Lord were also called “saints” in the Bible. Most people think of a “saint” as one who has been dead several years; at least long enough for all to have forgotten his sins. But “saints” were living Christians. Paul writes to the “saints” of the church in the city of Rome (Rom. 1:7). He wrote to living people. Some people take the word “saint,” and try to name a church after it. This also is to misuse the name given. (3) “Brethren. ” In relation to each other the saints were called “brethren.” They were all members of the family of God. Paul so names disciples of Christ, when he- says that Christ “appeared to above five hundred brethren at once” (1 Cor. 15:6). We have denominations today that get their name from the word “brethren,” which likewise is a misuse of the word. (4) “Christian” is another name given to the individuals who make up the church. In Acts 11:26, we read “the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” Paul almost persuaded Agrippa “to be a Christian” (Acts 26:28). Peter says “If any man suffer as , a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16). This term is always applied to members of the church; never is it given as a name for the church itself. So let us realize that the names given for the individuals who make up the church are not to be given as names for the church.

Neither the church, nor the members of the church have any one name; several are given for each in the Bible. But let us be sure that we are not presumptuous, in assuming a name for ourselves foreign to the Bible. The church is “the church of God,” “the church of the Lord,” “the body of Christ,” the “one body,” “the church of the firstborn,” and many other names. Several congregations are “churches of Christ.” Christians are “disciples,” “brethren,” “saints,” “priests,” “sons of God,” “children of God,” “heirs of God.” We must remember that it is important that we wear the names given by God, for God did not give us names or commandments that are unimportant. Let us not assume that where God has spoken, man can either obey or disobey, and yet have God’s approval.

We must wear the name of Christ for the church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-33; 2 Cor. 11:2); the church is God’s family, and thus should wear His name; whatever we do must be done in the name of Christ (Col. 3:17); it is only in his name that unity can ever be attained; and Paul says at the name of Christ every knee must bow (Phil. 2:9-11). The name of the church is of supreme importance. There is something in a name. “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among brethren, where we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Salvation is in the name of Christ! “The Churches of Christ Salute You” (Rom. 16:16).

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, pp. 179-181
January 30, 1975

By Luther Blackmon

Sometimes I have suspicioned that we call names out of spite and vindictiveness. Whoever does that advertises his littleness. But the person who says that we should never call names advertises his -ignorance of the true spirit of the New Testament writers. Of course, Luke could have said, “There were a couple in Jerusalem, a man and his wife, who sold some property and misrepresented the amount they gave, and for this the Lord killed them!” But for some reason, he told us exactly who they were. And Peter said, “Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost . . . . ” I think I know some preachers who are too nice to use the word “lie.” That is, unless something is told on them personally. One preacher just said that he had no place in his vocabulary for the word “liar.” All I can say is that his vocabulary is not big enough, and is too sweet.

Pet6r said, “Judas by transgression fell that he might go to his own place.” (Acts 1:25). Peter indicated that he had some doubt about Judas going to heaven. “What a terrible thing to say. He was judging the poor fellow.” I read an article once which made a feeble attempt to place Judas in a better light than that which is generally cast upon him. However, I doubt that even his champion hopes to meet him “over there.”

Paul tells us that “Elymas” was a “child of the devil,” an “enemy of all righteousness.” He told Elymas that. Can’t you just imagine how mortified some of the sophisticated upper crust would react to that kind of preaching today. I shouldn’t wonder if Paul would get “fired” right off.

John Mark turned back from the work and went not with Paul and Barnabas. Later Paul and Barnabas had such a disagreement over Mark that they split up. Luke says the contention between them was “sharp.” I have known many who said they would not for anything let their “unsaved” friends read a paper in which brethren are having “sharp contention.” Wonder if they tear out this chapter in Acts? (Acts 15:39). Later on, Paul speaks very favorably of Mark. He redeemed himself, and Paul held no grudges. (2 Tim. 4:11).

Apollos preached an imperfect Gospel in Ephesus, “knowing only the baptism of John.” Aquila and Priscilla taught him better and he continued his work. Was it necessary to put this in the divine record? Evidently the Holy Spirit thought so. (Acts 18:24-26).

Paul said that Peter acted the part of a hypocrite “when he was come to Antioch.” Peter was human and made human mistakes and some of them are recorded for all succeeding generations to read. This one is found in Gal. 2:11-13. The word “dissimulation” means hypocrisy.

Paul said, “Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world.” He said Hymenaeus and Alexander had made “shipwreck of the faith,” that Hymenaeus and Philetus had “erred . . . teaching that the resurrection had passed already.”

There are times when gospel preachers ought to be like the old dentist. A young dentist moved to town, and put up a sign that read: “Teeth extracted without pain.” The old dentist put up one that read: “Teeth extracted regardless of pain.” Sometimes it is necessary to name the sinner as well as the sins. It hurts, but it should.

Truth Magazine XIX: 12, p. 178
January 30, 1975